“Refusing to be Silent” based on Acts 5:27-32, John…

April 30, 2019February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

I’ll admit I have a strong
bias in this story. It feels like my
personal job to protect Thomas from the accusations made about him over the
years. I feel for him. He said something reasonable and rational and
has gained the title “Doubting Thomas” for 2 millennia. (My desire to protect Thomas would make a bit
more sense if the Jesus Seminar thought this story reflected historical memory,
which it does not, but that hasn’t had quite the impact you’d expect on my need
to protect Thomas.)

The problem, I think, is that
this story does what it supposed to do.
It was designed to include those Christians who did not experience the
resurrection first hand, and to affirm their faith. The line, “Have you believed because you
have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to
believe.”(20:29) The story seems to
say, because Thomas needed proof, but YOU managed to believe without it, you
are even better than one of the first disciples!

“Have faith, even in what you
can’t see” has been a perennial preaching favorite, and Thomas has been the
straw man set up to make it work. There
are a few issues with this though. Most
importantly, “believe what I tell you because I told you so, even if it doesn’t
make sense” is a terrible way to lead people.
Also, bodily resurrection is … a great metaphor, but not something to
get obsessed about as historical fact.

This year, I came across a new
great way to defend Thomas, namely that none of the disciples believed the
Easter story to begin with. Gail O’Day
in the New Interpreter’s Bible says, “John 20:19-23 is linked with the
preceding story in the garden by use the emphatic expression ‘that day’ (v.
19), although the disciples fearful conduct indicates that they have not
credited Mary’s report (cf. Luke 24:11).
The locked doors may be mentioned to heighten the drama and supernatural
effect of Jesus’ entrance into the room (v. 19b, fc. 25; Luke 24:37),
but their primary importance for the Fourth Evangelist is found in the phrase
‘for the fear of the Jews.’”[1]
Aka, all the disciples were scared, and hiding in that room, even though they’d
heard the Easter narrative from the women already. They hadn’t seen and they didn’t
believe. It wasn’t just Thomas.

Furthermore, as another
scholar says, ““The women’s report should have been credible because (1) they were
relating events of which they had firsthand experience (2) there were several
witnesses (3) their character has been established by the reports of their
selfless service to Jesus and his disciples.”[2]

Now, before I can go on in my
defense of Thomas, I need to take a break and talk about antisemitism in the
New Testament. It is morally
reprehensible not to, especially with texts like what we have today, and
shootings like we had yesterday – not to mention the past two millennia of
Western history. Now, I’m actually not
convinced about whether or not the New Testament is inherently antisemitic for
two historical reasons. The first is
that at the time the New Testament was written, Christians understood
themselves to be Jews who were following “the way” of Jesus…. not unlike the
various denominations in Christianity today where all of us would say we are
following the way of Jesus, but we might add that we’re doing so through some
of the teachings of John and Susanna Wesley.
Given that the earlier followers of “the way” were Jewish, the things
they’re saying against the Jews are INTERNAL squabbling, reflecting something
like the things I say about the WCA.

The problem is that while the
followers of “the way” were an oppressed group in the time of the writing in
the New Testament, they became the powerful group and the history of the
Western hemisphere since Constantine has involved Christians having power over
Jews and using the language of the New Testament to justify mistreatment of
others of God’s beloved people.

The second piece takes a
little bit more nuance. “The Jews” is
not really a reference to all Jews, or Jews in general. More often, it is being used to refer to the
people in roles of authority within Judaism.
This applies to the Gospel and to the story from Acts. The people who were in roles of Jewish authority
were the ones who had been placed there by the Roman Empire, with the intention
of controlling the Jewish colonies by controlling their leaders. Because the Empire appointed, and removed,
leaders at will; the Jewish leaders served the Empire rather than the people,
or God, or the faith tradition. So,
sometimes, “the Jew” doesn’t even mean people who are Jewish, it means Roman
Empire leadership appointed to Jewish roles.
In our Sunday Night Bible Study, where people are great at asking
questions and pondering, we have been wondering if “the Jews” was really coded
language for “the oppression of the Empire” while being a FAR safer way to say
it. Further, the Roman appointed leaders
REALLY wanted to keep the peace, and keep their jobs.

But, again, even though I’m
not sure the original language of John or Acts was anti-Jewish, because 1. it was written by people who were themselves
Jewish, about an internal fight within Judaism and 2. the references to “the
Jews” seems to refer to Roman appointed leaders, I KNOW that these texts
have been used SINCE Christianity became a dominate religion to do harm, and I
want us to be very very careful in how we hear, speak about, and reflect these
texts in our lives. NOTHING about
Jesus or the Jesus movement gives us permission to do harm (or allow harm to be
done) to God’s beloved people, and God’s beloved people come in ALL faith
traditions or lack there of. Some of our
job in refusing to be silent is refusing to be silent about the mistreatment of
our Jewish siblings in faith by Christians.

Now, all that said, in Acts,
we hear Peter telling the Jewish authorities that they have murdered
Jesus. (Do you see now why I spent all
that time fussing?) The authorities are
presented as being concerned about disrupting the peace, which probably
reflects the fact that Luke-Acts was written AFTER the Roman Empire came in and
destroyed the 2^nd Temple ALONG with killing a lot of people (the
Jewish historical Josephus says 1.1 million people died, that is likely an
exaggeration, but it reflects an enormous scale). I think the Jewish leaders probably WERE
trying to prevent something like that from happening.

Both Christianity and Judaism
were transformed, perhaps even formed by the experience of death and
destruction in 70 CE. Nothing is the
same as it was before then, and some of the separation of the traditions
happened as the Temple was destroyed. I
believe that the New Testament, which other than the authentic letters of Paul
was written in the aftermath of the destruction of the Temple, seeks to make
sense of that destruction in many of the same ways that the Hebrew Bible tries
to make sense of the destruction of the first temple and Jerusalem in 586 BCE.

One of the ways we see God at
work in the world is that what should be an end point, a death, a destruction,
ends up being over the long run a source of great wisdom, creativity,
compassion, and growth. The faith
traditions we have today were developed in the midst of horror and destruction,
but they speak to growth, hope, faith, and love.

In Acts, we hear Peter say, “We
must obey God rather than human authority.”
How and when do we make that determination? When are we clear that God’s will is distinct
from the will of those in authority? Is
it simply the question of violence – that God is not for violence, passive or
active? Or is it about oppression – that
God is not on the side of oppression? Or
is it more positive? That God is on the
side of life! And love! And expansive possibility! This determination matters.

Now, the story in John is
happening on Easter evening. That’s why
it is so notable that none of those gathered seemed to have figured out that
hope and courage are the Resurrection narrative, not being afraid and locking
yourselves into a room by yourself. We
do know, because of the radical growth of Christianity in the early years, that
the disciples did leave the room, and did so with great courage. They continued sharing Jesus message of love,
of God, of hope and possibility, and were killed for it too – and they too died
with great courage and integrity. The
Resurrection narrative is the story of facing fears with courage and letting
God’s yes take precedence over the world’s no.

In the midst of this
narrative, in the midst of the fear of the disciples sitting in the locked
room, we hear a repetition of a blessing, “Peace be with you.” Peace is shalom here, it is a holistic desire
for well-being, not just the absence of violence. Shalom implies physical, mental, spiritual, emotional,
AND relational well-being. That’s the
best part of it – shalom can’t exist in just one person because it is
inherently relational. It also can’t
exist without each person finding it, so all gain from it. “Shalom, well-being, connection, love,
wholeness be with all of you!” And this gets repeated.

Then there is the weird thing
about sins. Did you hear it? “When he had said this,” (the peace bit) “he breathed on them and said
to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they
are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.” What does that mean? Gail O’Day says, “Any discussion of this
verse, therefore, must be grounded in an understanding of the forgiveness of
sins as the work of the entire community. … The forgiveness of sins must be
understood as the Spirit-empowered mission of continuing Jesus’ work in the
world. … Because the community’s work
is an extension of Jesus’ work, v. 23 must be interpreted in terms of Jesus’s
teaching and actions about sin. … In
John, sin is a theological failing, not a moral or behavioral transgression (in
contrast to Matt 18:18). To have sin is
to be blind to the revelation of God in Jesus.”[3]

Does that mean, then, that
what Jesus is quoted as saying can be understood as “If you teach people of the
possibilities of life as I taught you, they will be free from fear; but if you
allow them to continue to live in fear, nothing will change?” It is amazing, but this all fits with the
Maundy Thursday narrative about “love each other as I have loved you.” O’Day says, “By loving one
another as Jesus loves, the faith community reveals God to the world.”[4] And THAT, amazingly enough, releases “sin”
in John’s perspective. 😉

Now all of this brings us back
around to my friend Thomas, the one who is as direct and honest as Peter when
he says, “Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands, and put my finger
in the mark of the nails and my hand in his side, I will not
believe.” I really love this
line. I love it especially because when
the story then provides him with proof he does a 180 and DOES affirm the truth,
more strongly than anyone has before him.
“My Lord and My God” was a very strong statement. I wonder how often, when we are presented
with proof we’ve asked for, we are able to notice that it is there and it is
time to change our minds?

Most of all though, do we have
the courage of Peter and of Thomas, to speak the truth? Are we willing to say what we don’t believe
when we don’t believe it AND what we do when we do? Are we willing to speak up and witness to the
power of love to transform lives? That
is, to release the power of sin in the world?
(Giggle, it is so weird to say that.)
May it be so. Amen

[1]Gail
O’Day, New Interpreter’s Bible Volume IX: John, Leander E. Keck
editorial board convener (Nashville: Abingdon Press,1995) 846.

[2] R.
Alan Culpepper, “Luke,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible Vol. 9
(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994) 470.

[3]O’Day,
847.

[4]O’Day,
848.

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

Sermons

“A New Thing” based on Isaiah 65:17-25 and Luke 24:1-12

April 21, 2019February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

Years ago I asked my boss for a computer password. He responded, “You should know this. Its is the most obvious answer. We are a ____ people.” Now, I’ve had a lot of church related jobs, but I didn’t think this was obvious. I thought there were a lot of possible answers. We are a loving people. We are a Jesus-following people. We are a gracious people. We are a beloved people. After a while, I tried “We are a resurrection people” and that got me close enough that I was informed the password was “Easter.”

I’ve thought about that every since. For my boss, it was SO obvious that “Easter” was the sort of people we are. For me, there are a lot of questions about what that means, and how we live it out. I yearn for the sort of certainty he had in thinking I could guess the password.

Every month I ask a question of the Church Council as a start to our meeting. I’m known for asking difficult questions, and this church is full of thoughtful, intentional, … strong-willed…. opinionated people. (I wouldn’t have it any other way.) Thus, I ask a difficult question, people offer a variety of different answers, I have a better sense of what people are thinking and we move on.

For the first time, after nearly 6 years, this month the Church Council found an ANSWER to my question. It started like normal. I asked, “Where are you seeing resurrection?,” and people offered many and varied answers. But then a pattern emerged, and was named. The most profound way people are seeing resurrection is in the restoration of relationships, and as a corollary, in the miracle of life-giving relationships themselves.

I thought this was a profound answer, a good way of knowing what it is to be Easter people, so I ran it by the Confirmation class. You would be delighted to know that our Confirmation class is very reflective of this church. The students are thoughtful, intentional, strong-willed, …. opinionated people. They have no patience for irrationality, and even less for exclusion in any form. Last week I ran this idea by them. We talked about resurrection, what it does and does not mean, and how we make sense of the metaphor for our lives today. I wasn’t sure that “restored relationships” would be as meaningful for teens as for those who had experienced brokenness in relationships for decades. It turns out, I was wrong.

They thought that “restored relationships” and “hope where it seems there is no hope” sounded both meaningful and valid as ways of understanding Easter.

Thus, I’m trusting the Church Council and the Confirmation class to be good tests of the pulse of this community, and I’m going to keep on preaching about restored relationships AS resurrection.

For those who aren’t quite with me yet though, I want to play with that wonderful line from Luke’s first Easter Story, “Why do you look for the living among the dead?” (v. 5) Within the story it functions to emphasize the empty grave, but it also seems well phrased for metaphorical contemplation. When else have we given up something “for dead” when there is still life in it? When have we discounted a possibility, including of a restored relationship, when God wasn’t done with it yet? What does it mean to be people looking for the living among the living, rather than among the dead?

Last week I quoted John Dominic Crossan’s assessment of Jesus’ teaching, namely that Jesus taught “that God has given all human beings the wisdom to discern how, here and now in this world, one can so live that God’s power, rule, and domination are evidently present to all observers.”^¹That left us questioning how to live our lives being guided by that wisdom. Parker Palmer is a wisdom teacher, who teaches people how to find the power of life within themselves. It seems to me that his book his book “A Hidden Wholeness: A Journey Toward an Undivided Life” takes off where John Dominic Crossan off.

Parker Palmer believes in the power and wisdom of the soul, and since the word soul isn’t one I find easy to explain either, I’ll let him say what he means by that:

“Philosophers haggle about what to call this core of our humanity, but I’m not stickler for precision. Thomas Merton called it the true self. Buddhists call it original nature or big self. Quakers call it the inner teacher or the inner light. Hasidic Jews call it a spark of the divine. Humanists call it identity and integrity. In popular parlance, people often call it soul. … it is the objective, ontological reality of selfhood that keeps us form reducing ourselves, or each other, to biological mechanisms, psychological projections, sociological constructs, or raw material to be manufactured into whatever society needs – diminishments of our humanity that constantly threaten the quality of our lives.”²

I’m going to take it a step further and say that the soul is the source of the wisdom that Dom was talking about, “the wisdom to discern how, here and now in this world, one can so live that God’s power, rule, and domination are evidently present to all observers.” Our souls KNOW, we know, but to know we have to listen to our souls.

Throughout Lent we’ve been talking about spiritual practices. One might also say we’ve been talking about practices of listening to the Divine, to our own souls, and to each other’s souls. None of this is particularly easy, but Parker Palmer is the teacher who is focused on exactly that. He thinks most of the time we’re led by ego and by fear, which leads us to be divided from the wisdom of our own souls, “Afraid that our inner light will be extinguished or our inner darkness exposed, we hide our true identities from each other. In the process, we become separated from our own souls. We end up living divided lives, so far removed from the truth we hold within that we cannot know the ‘integrity that comes from being who you are.’”³ He calls us to wholeness, but cautions us that, “Wholeness does not mean perfection: it means embracing brokenness as an integral part of life.”⁴

Isn’t THAT an interesting idea to consider on Easter? On this day when we think about resurrection, about restoration, about new hope and the power of life; what does it mean to think about wholeness as requiring acceptance of brokenness? Do we tend to think of resurrection as … perfection? I suspect we do. But that misses the point. God’s work in the world towards restoration doesn’t require nor create perfection. Perfection isn’t a part of life, and resurrection is about restoring LIFE. HOWEVER, God’s work in the world is always towards wholeness, and wholeness requires seeing, accepting, and making peace with brokenness.

Parker goes on to explain how we TEND to deal with this, “A divided life is a wounded life, and the soul keeps calling us to heal the wound. Ignore that call, and we find ourselves trying to numb our pain with an anesthetic of choice, be it substance abuse, overwork, consumerism, or mindless media noise. Such anesthetics are easy to come by in a society that wants to keep us divided and unaware of our pain – for the divided life that is pathological for individuals can serve social systems well, especially when it comes to those functions that are morally dubious.”⁵ Then he explains how to get OUT of that cycle, and the answer is both individual and communal. Palmer is a Quaker, and he believes there is a lot of power in silence, in quiet, and in listening. He encourages people to make space for silence in their lives, but he also says, “But we cannot embrace that challenge all alone, at least not for long; if we are to sustain the journey toward an undivided life. The journey has solitary passages, to be sure, and yet it is simply too arduous to take without the assistance of others. And because we we have such a vast capacity for self-delusion, we will inevitably get lost en route without correctives from outside of ourselves.”⁶

A few years ago I did an intensive training in the teachings of Parker Palmer. Much of what Palmer offers is based in the Quaker tradition. In living out these ideals in community, I discovered there was A LOT of power in them. We were taught to ask open, honest questions of each other, and to sit in silence especially when it was uncomfortable. We were invited to play with poetry and art, journaling, and conversation. We were taught that the soul is wise as all get out, but also shy and needing time, space, and metaphor to share its wisdom. We were taught to hold space for each other’s souls, both because souls are inherently precious, but also because every time a glimpse of a soul is seen, we learn about our own soul too. It is an unspoken part of Palmer’s worldview that souls are unique reflections of the Divine.

I have one more of his insights I want to share today: “All of the great spiritual traditions want to awaken us to the fact that we cocreate the reality in which we live. And all of them ask two questions intended to keep us awake: What are we sending form within ourselves out into the world, and what impact is it having ‘out there’? What is the world sending back at us, and what impact is it having ‘in here’? We are continually engaged in the evolution of self and world – and we have the power to choose, moment by moment, between that which gives life and that which deals death.”⁷ Isn’t that the question of Easter? How do we choose life? How do we work with God who chooses life in choosing life?

How do we live lives that REALLY show “that God has given all human beings the wisdom to discern how, here and now in this world, one can so live that God’s power, rule, and domination are evidently present to all observers.”^⁸How do we participate in and build community that loves people, and their souls, into a fuller wholeness; under the premise that whole people are a gift to the world? How do we build communities that reflect God’s goodness, wholeness, hope, and the power of God’s commitment to LIFE rather than death?

How do we allow God’s love, life, and wholeness into our lives so that we, and our relationships, can be restored? John Dominic Crossan believes that Jesus taught us we already know what we need to know, we already have the wisdom. Parker Palmer says that wisdom is in our souls, and to access the wisdom we need some quiet, and we need others who also trust in the wisdom of our souls.

This is what we know: God is a God of LIVE, not death; the wisdom you need to lead a transformed life is already with you; there are people who trust in your wisdom and are willing to help you find it; silence is a valuable asset in listening to the soul; metaphor, art, and open-honest questions matter too; AND… this is a community that has been and will continue to love people AS THEY ARE. That love then means that people can safely let their souls out to play, and grow further and further into who God calls us to be. We are a safe place for souls, and that means we are a safe place for LIFE. Maybe, after all, we are an Easter people. May it ALWAYS be so. Amen

1 John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Stories of The Death of Jesus (USA: HarperSanFrancisco: 1995) 47.

2 Parker Palmer, A Hidden Wholeness: The Journey Toward the Undivided Self(USA: Josey-Bass, A Wiley Imprint, 2004), 33.

3 Palmer, 4.

4 Palmer, 5.

5 Palmer, 20.

6 Palmer, 10.

7 Palmer, 48.

8 John Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Stories of The Death of Jesus (USA: HarperSanFrancisco: 1995) 47.

–

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

April 21, 2019

Sermons

“Being Fed and Given Rest by God” based on…

April 15, 2019February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

As human beings, we come into the world with needs. New
babies need milk, diaper changes, human touch, soothing, temperature
control, shelter, communication, emotional mirroring, safe spaces,
tummy time, and lots and lots of sleep. As far as I can tell, our
needs as humans grow from there.

Our needs remain complicated as well. We have physical
needs for food, drink, clothing, shelter, and equally important
social and emotional needs to be heard, to be understood, to play, to
find peace, to connect. Nonviolent Communication teachers share
lists of universal human needs, the one I use most often lists more
than 90 of them.

Because there are so many, and because life is so
complicated, it is rare for us to have our needs met at the same
time. Nonviolent Communication theory suggests that everything we
say and do is really about trying to get those needs met, and I
haven’t seen any reason to disbelieve it. It may help to know that
needs for peace, contribution, learning, purpose, and celebration
exist – so some of the needs make space for us to want to do things
that impact others.

The Isaiah passage opens up for me the dream of having
needs being met, perhaps even to have all of them met all at once.
Without Isaiah dreaming it, I’m not sure I could conceive of this.
Furthermore, the dream isn’t of some weak, minimalistic set of needs
being met. It is all of them being met well. Using the direct,
physical needs of thirst and hunger, Isaiah speaks of being offered
water, wine, milk, and rich food – without having to even pay for
them!

These were not foods that average people were eating –
these were the foods of the rich, and Isaiah proposes that God wants
all the people to access those good foods. This is an opening to
thinking about life with God, life in relationship to God, life that
is shared under God’s vision of how things are supposed to be.

How things are supposed to be is incredibly disconnected
from how the world actually was, and how it actually is. This
passage comes from the end of Second Isaiah, which dreams of a
different life for the exiles who God is going to lead home. The
people have been in captivity in Babylon, and their captivity is
about to be transformed. The hope of the passage is that in coming
home to Ancient Israel, the people will also come home to God’s ways.
Walter Brueggemann writes,

“The initial verse, perhaps in the summoning mode of a
street vendor, offers to passersby free water, free wine, and free
milk. This of course is in contrast to the life resources offered by
the empire that are always expensive, grudging, and unsatisfying.
Israel is invited to choose the free, alternative nourishment offered
by Yahweh. Thus, although we may ponder the metaphor of free food,
the udnerying urging is the sharp contrast between the way of life
given in Babylon that leads to death and the way of Yahweh that leads
to joyous homecoming.”¹

The vision of Yahweh for Ancient Israel, which I believe
is still the vision of God for all people, is for the people to have
enough to survive AND thrive. The world itself produces plenty, but
our societies distribution patterns prevent the “enough” from
getting to the people. According to the Poor People’s campaign, in
the US today, 43.5% of US population are in poverty or are
low-income.²
Those old systems of the empires – the ones that bring the wealth
created by the many to the top – those are still happening.

It is funny to think of our needs being met, not only
because there are so many of them, but because even the idea of
universally satisfying the basic physical human needs is so far from
reality. What would it look like if all people had enough to eat –
of nutritious and delicious food? Can we quite imagine it? What
would it look like here and elsewhere if the housing stock was mold
free, well insulated, repairs were up to date, water was safe to
drink, AND homelessness was eliminated? It is a thing to ponder.
Can we imagine universal health care in this country, and one that
works? Where people can afford both preventative care and
necessarily life-giving measures? What about this – can we imagine
a world where there are enough mental health care providers for all
who need them, and all are offering top notch, compassionate care
(and the mental health care providers aren’t over worked, are
adequately paid, and have time and energy to do necessary self care)?
Oh what a world this would be!! Ready for one more? Can we imagine
a society with expansive parental leave policies for people at every
income level, with excellent nursery and day care for babies AND
nursing and adult care for adults in need, provided by people who are
adequately compensated for their imperative work, and trained to
offer it at the highest levels?

Can we even dream it? Those are the BASICS, and Isaiah
invites us to dream them. Those aren’t quite milk, wine, and rich
foods. Those are merely clean water and enough bread for everyone.
Even with these pieces met, a lot of problems would remain. But if
the BASICS were met, it would matter a lot. And it is POSSIBLE.
This is not an unattainable dream – the capacity to make it happen
already exists.

I think it is a dream that Isaiah pushes us to
contemplate. If we don’t dream a little bit, we can’t know what we
are working towards, and we have no chance of getting there.

Of course, if we had a system where basic needs were
met, it would radically upend the economy, and society. It is a very
BIG dream. To have people’s needs met would mean that some of the
value of their labor would have to return to them, and that more the
value of all of our labor would be needed to care for those who
cannot labor. We can’t have a system that cares adequately for all
people AND one that allows the work of most to enrich the few.

In addition to dreaming a dream of human needs being
met, Isaiah’s passage also condemns the system as it was for how it
worked. It indicts the labor system for enriching the empire at the
expense of the labors. It also called out the thinking that allowed
it, called people out of the idea that working harder within the
system would find them a way to get to satisfaction. This is one of
the hardest lessons for us today. Working harder in rigged systems
only exhausts us, it does not get us what we need. We still have a
system where people “spend your money for that which is not bread
and your labor for that which does not satisfy,” because the labor
is not permitted to bring satisfaction!

God’s dream is NOT a system of competition, of forced
labor, or even of economic gain over another. God’s dream is NOT one
where people have to work harder than their neighbors into to fight
for the scraps they need to survive. This is true BOTH with regards
to food and health care AND with regard to love and beauty. God
wants us to have what we need, and the earth is capable of providing
it, but not when people are exploited for other’s excess.

I suspect is is this system of thinking that is
reflected in the later words of the “righteous” and the “wicked”
– the ones who are willing to let go of the systems of exploitation
of the empire to move into God’s vision are the righteous, and those
who continue to participate in it and be co-opted by it are the
“wicked.” This isn’t just me. Brueggemann came to the same
conclusions 😉 (and that makes me feel SUPER smart.) “’The
wicked’, I suggest, are not disobedient people in general. In
context, they are those who are so settled in Babylon and so
accommodated to imperial ways that they have no intention of making a
positive response to Yahweh’s invitation of homecoming.”³

Between all of this, and the echoes from the Psalm, I’m
wondering us and about how well we are doing “making a positive
response to Yahweh’s invitation of homecoming.” How well are we
able to leave behind the systems and thought patterns of oppression
and competition to move into a brave new world? How interested are
we in the possibilities of the present and the future?

For me, some of the process of freeing myself from the
systems of oppression come in the practices of Sabbath-keeping and
meditative prayer. It is EASY to get pulled in to never-ending
productivity, but when I STOP trying to be productive, I’m more able
to figure out what the goal of the production is anyway! It is easy
to get pulled into a roller-coaster of emotions with the 24 hour news
cycle, but when I stop and get quiet, I can hear which parts of what
is happening I’m most able to respond to in a useful way. The times
of quiet in my life are when I can hear my own soul, and the Divine
prodding, when I can let go of how I’m supposed to present myself,
and simply be. And unless I’m doing those things, I’m VERY easily
swayed by the systems of oppression.

This is where spirituality intersects with both justice
work and my own well-being. It isn’t healthy for us to live in the
levels of anxiety that modern life produces, but it isn’t easy to let
go of i either! (In a different sort of church, that might merit an
“amen.”) It is hard to focus on what needs to be done to build a
better society and world, particularly when dumpster fires are
happening all around us – but the capacity to build focus is part
of the gift of spiritual practice, as is the process of being able to
prioritize.

Beloveds of God, are we finding the ways to listen to
the Holy One? God’s guidance is worthwhile – the Psalmist even
finds it worth clinging to. Are we taking the time for rest, for
Sabbath, for prayer, so that we can have those needs met and be able
to envision a world where many needs are met for all people? The
invitation is given to us – to be fed, to rest, to be filled, to be
satiated. May we receive it, and pass it on. Amen

1Walter
Bruggemann, Isaiah
40-66
(Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998),159.

2Institute
for Policy Studies, “The Souls of Poor Folk: A Preliminary Report”
(December 2017)
https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PPC-Report-Draft-1.pdf,
page 8.

3Brueggemann,
160.

Rev. Sara E. Baron
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305
Pronouns: she/her/hers
http://fumcschenectady.org/
 https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

March 24, 2019

Sermons

“Taking Refuge in God” based on Psalm 91:1-2, 9-16…

April 15, 2019February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

I find it terribly interesting to be human, particularly
the irrational parts of being human. For instance, I am quite
capable of articulating the difference between God and the Church.
Here, I’ll prove it to you: God is the creator of all that is, and
the grounding source of love that universe is build on. The Church
is a gathering of people who have learned about God largely through
Jesus of Nazareth and try to be responsive to God, including in
sharing in the effort to make the world more loving.

OK. I know there is a difference. I believe myself to
be rock solid on the difference.

Except that many, many, MANY times in my life, I’ve
gotten confused between the two. When the Church (big C) has messed
up, has proven itself to be entirely too human, has broken my heart,
and has failed to be what I think it should be – I’ve responded by
getting distant with God, as if the failures of the Church are God’s
fault. I’ve done this repeatedly in my life, and I don’t seem to be
capable of remembering the difference between the two, even though I
already know it (mentally).

This seems like a particularly good time to remember
that God is God, and the denomination, the Annual Conference, even
this local church are not. God is dependable, steadfast, and loving;
even when God’s people “turn away and our love fails.” Holiness
is present, even when we don’t feel loved or heard by God’s people.
The Spirit offers us rest, support, and abundance; even when life is
feeling frenetic, unhinged, and scarce. The Divine calls us to
healing, to wholeness, to authenticity, to full life; even when at
the same time we hear voices telling us to form ourselves into
something we just aren’t.

God is God, and God is GOOD. God’s steadfast love
endures forever, and it is enough.

In the language of the Psalm, God is our refuge, our
fortress, our dwelling place, our shelter. We are at home in God,
and we are safe. We can relax with the Holy One, we can trust in
God’s love, and goodness, and desire for our well-being. We don’t
have to fight to be “enough” or different than how we really are.
We aren’t competing against each other for God’s love, because it is
not a finite quality. Our natural state is “beloved by God.” We
don’t have to earn it or compete for it. It already is.

That, dear ones, is how grace works. Just in case it
has been a while since you’ve remembered the nuances of grace, grace
is a word for God’s unconditional love for all of creation, and it is
God’s nature to be loving, to be full of grace. Grace isn’t earned,
it just is, because it is God’s essence. As followers of John
Wesley, even talk about various forms of grace including previenent
grace, the grace that comes before (like someone wearing too much
scent). Previenent grace is God’s love for a person that comes
before that person is aware of God, or of God’s love.

Wesleyan theology says that later on, if we become aware
of God, and of God’s love, and decide to work with God for good in
the world, we are impacted by “sanctifying grace”, also known as
the process of sanctification. This is the process by which things
that are not loving in us are allowed to wilt away, while love takes
deeper and deeper root in us. It is the process of letting our lives
be defined by God’s grace for us and for others. It is letting love
take over. The idea of John Wesley is that the work of Christians in
their own lives is to be sanctified, to become every more loving
until love is all that is left.

I like that part 😉

Deuteronomy is … it is many things at once. Walter
Bruggemann, in his commentary on Deuteronomy, often talks about how
the text criss-crosses generations. He says, “The rhetoric works
so that the speaker who is a belated rememberer of an old event
becomes a present tense participant in that old event. In
‘liturgical time,’ the gap between past time and present time is
overcome, and present-tense characters become involved in remembered
events.”¹
This gets even more criss-crossed when we attempt to put this text
into context.

Deuteronomy places itself on the far side of the river
from the Promised Land, it is a series of speeches by Moses to the
people before they finally enter the Land. So, from that
perspective, this series of instructions of what to do with the first
fruits of the land – the promised land – is a future tense
reality. Within the text, the people are dreaming of living in the
land, and haven’t gotten there yet. Yet, the instructions are for
what people will say with their tithes, and the words people are
saying reflect back on the process of getting to (and into the land)
which in the story hasn’t happened yet.

If you want to add more layers (which clearly I do),
think about the fact that this was likely written down during the
exile – so a person who once lived in the land but did no longer,
was writing down the words of one who never lived in the land, to
those who would enter the land, about what they would say when they
got produce out of the land, about their history before they got to
the land. Which is to say, I think Brueggemann is right, and there
are ways that time gets messy in these texts 😉

I’m interested, as well, in the fact that re-telling in
this liturgical way of the entrance into the Promised Land doesn’t
talk about the wandering in the desert. It is huge theme in
Deuteronomy, where it is said time and time again that the people
needed to learn that they could rely on God before they could be
ready to deal with the abundance of life in the Promised Land, so
they wouldn’t think it had come to them from their own doing. It
also functioned to led the old generation pass away, so that those
who had known the oppression of slavery were not the ones who build a
new thing. However, none of that is mentioned in this particular
piece, even though the rest of the history is.

Bishop Karen Oliveto posted on Facebook this week, “You
can take people out of Egypt but the main task of liberation is to
take Egypt out of the people. Perhaps this is why wilderness
wandering is necessary in our journey?” That was when I noticed
that this particular text glosses over the wandering. Perhaps it
doesn’t have to be named here, because in the idea that the person is
giving first fruits, we know they haven’t forgotten the lessons of
the wandering. In any case, remembering that the wandering exists to
teach us liberation is definitely of use!

I’m struck by the way the Promised Land is constructed
as being itself a refuge, throughout the Bible. Granted, just like
churches, it is an often broken one, and just like churches it gets
confused with God. When the people lost the land they took it to
mean they’d lost God’s favor. Yet, it might be easier to read this
text with awareness that land IS sacred, and that means land is HOLY,
and certainly for those who have been without land, land is a refuge
onto which they can build a life. Space can become home, it can
reflect God’s own home-like attributes.

Did you hear the end of the passage? After the first
fruits have been given and the past has been remembered, it says,
“Then you, together with the Levites and the aliens who reside
among you, shall celebrate with all the bounty that the LORD your God
has given to you and to your house.” I LOVE this part. After all
the labor of growing and harvesting the food, after all the
remembering (and bouncing around in time) the end game is a feast of
bounty to which ALL are invited. All, including those without land.
All, including those who don’t know or worship God. Those with
plenty, those without, those set aside to do God’s work, those who
are doing normal daily work, those who don’t have work – ALL the
people are coming to the feast. The work that is given to God is
meant to be redistributed so that everyone can access it together.

That Promised Land, the one the people were waiting to
enter? It wasn’t meant to just be a refuge for them. It was meant
to be a refuge for all. The “law” of the Torah seeks to ensure
that widows, and orphans, those without someone powerful to care for
them, will still have enough. The Torah seeks to ensure that
outsiders – the foreigners, the immigrants, the refugees – will be
welcome and cared for. The Torah OBSESSES over the poor, and puts in
place practices that will prevent long term poverty and allow people
to be lifted up. The land isn’t meant to be a refuge for some, or
for the lucky, or for those who do right. It was designed to be a
refuge for all – a refuge that reflects God’s nature.

Now, after fussing over these texts sufficiently, I want
to get a bit practical. God IS our refuge, and an excellent refuge
at that, but we are not always prepared to receive the goodness of
God’s gifts because we tend not to pay attention them. We are
something, maybe too busy, too distracted, or too scared. (Scared
because we’ve been around broken humans enough to be afraid that God
isn’t as loving as we’d hope, since humans often aren’t.)

However, the rest, the refuge, the HOME that God IS for
us, is a gift to us that we can receive if we make time and space to
do so. I, personally, am best able to connect with this gift when I
practice Centering Prayer. Centering Prayer is “just” being,
breathing in and out, and letting thoughts float away without
judgment or attachment. It is a type of prayer that takes practice,
but it is transformative. Other times, to access the rest, the
refuge, the home that God IS, I need to be in physical places where I
feel safe; other times I need to be with those with whom I can laugh.
Still other times, a quiet walk in the woods, a good deep cry, or
some time coloring mandalas will make space within me to let God’s
gifts in. What helps you? Are you doing it? Do you need help
finding new or different ways to let God’s rest, refuge, offer of
home take hold in you? If you do, let’s talk.

Because the world doesn’t need us exhausted, aimless,
and scared. God and the world most need people being sanctified by
grace, and I think we should make space to let God help us be those
people! Amen

1Walter
Brueggemann, Deuteronomy
(Nashville:
Abingdon Press, 2001)

Rev. Sara E. Baron
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305
Pronouns: she/her/hers
http://fumcschenectady.org/
 https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

March 10, 2019

Sermons

“Change and Letting Go” based on Psalm 32 and…

April 15, 2019February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

“The initial verse, perhaps in the summoning mode of a
street vendor, offers to passersby free water, free wine, and free
milk. This of course is in contrast to the life resources offered by
the empire that are always expensive, grudging, and unsatisfying.
Israel is invited to choose the free, alternative nourishment offered
by Yahweh. Thus, although we may ponder the metaphor of free food,
the underlying urging is the sharp contrast between the way of life
given in Babylon that leads to death and the way of Yahweh that leads
to joyous homecoming.”¹

I think it is a dream that Isaiah pushes us to
contemplate. If we don’t dream a little bit, we can’t know what we
are working towards, and we have no chance of getting there.

1Walter
Bruggemann, Isaiah
40-66
(Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998),159.

2Institute
for Policy Studies, “The Souls of Poor Folk: A Preliminary Report”
(December 2017)
https://www.poorpeoplescampaign.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PPC-Report-Draft-1.pdf,
page 8.

3Brueggemann,
160.

Rev. Sara E. Baron
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305
Pronouns: she/her/hers
http://fumcschenectady.org/
 https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

March 24, 2019

Sermons

“Figuring Out Priorities, Discernment as Prayer Practice” based on…

April 15, 2019February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

This
Mary washing Jesus’s feet with her hair story is a variation on
stories found in the Synoptic Gospels. Just to clarify a few things
that you might have heard: this is the Mary of Mary and Martha, not
Mary of Magdala; there is no reason to believe that the woman in the
story was a prostitute; that said there were a few indiscretions
inherent in the story! To name them succinctly: women weren’t
supposed to be a part of formal dinner parties (then again Mary
wasn’t supposed to sit at Jesus’s feet as a disciple either), a
woman taking her hair down in public was scandalous, and feet aren’t
always really FEET in the Bible, even though I think they are here.

Other
than Jesus, all the characters in this story are unique to John’s
version. Given that, it is quite interesting that Judas is put in
the role he is. It works well as foreshadowing. It also works well
to explain a few things. When Judas is called a “thief” in the
story, the particular verb is the same one used in chapter 10 to
describe a thief who steals sheep. Thus, “The expression ‘not
because he cared about the poor’ echoes the description of the hired
hand’s lack of care for the sheep (10:13). The use of these words
suggests that the description of Judas is intended to point the
reader toward the proper context in which to place Judas’s actions.
When he betrays Jesus, he betrays the sheep.”¹
Thus when Mary takes care of Jesus, she takes care of the sheep too.
The shepherd and the sheep are interdependent.

John’s
version of this story sets up an interesting question: is it better
to use the super expensive (5 figure) perfume on Jesus or to sell it
and give the proceeds to the poor? The answer most theologians have
given is that it is good to be devoted to Jesus. The text sets us up
to think this way by saying that not even Judas meant the money for
the poor. However, I think it is a valid question!

I
think it is a REALLY valid question. After all, how do we decide
what to do with our resources? Most of us, most of the time, aren’t
in possession of perfume worth’s a year salary that was hand carried
from India to Bethany, but we do have our own resources to care
about. How do we decide what to give away, and what to use? How do
we decide what portions of our time to give away? When are are ready
to give something away – time, or money, resources or energy- how
do we know where to best put it?

I’m
not a great decider when it comes to such questions (or most others.)
I tend to think like a Tupper, “I need more data!” The answer
between “show devotion” and “care for the vulnerable” is
fuzzy for me plenty of the time.

And
I worry that when I don’t decide, when I just go about my day to day
life without thinking too hard, I’m even more likely to err than if I
consider a decision carefully and then choose “wrong.” Yet the
fear of being wrong often leads me to the status quo, and the status
quo isn’t particularly intentional.

Luckily
there is something called discernment. Apple dictionary does a great
job with the word “discernment.” The first definition is “the
ability to judge well” the second is “(in Christian contexts)
perception in the absence of judgement with a view to obtaining
spiritual direction and understanding.”²
So, in a very practical way discernment is deciding, but it has more
nuance: it is about making decisions spiritually. I suspect that
sounds fine and good to most of you – but also a bit meaningless.

I
have two practical offerings for you – two means of getting into
discernment. The first is a spiritual practice called “Daily
Examen.” I’ve mentioned it before, because I really like it.
Daily Examen is a simple practice, it is flexible, it is meaningful,
and it is HANDS DOWN the best way I know of for discernment of BIG
LIFE THINGS.

It
can be done individually, with a friend or partner, or in a group.
It goes like this. You do what you need to do to center yourself, be
that lighting a candle, turning on music, sitting comfortably, taking
deep breathes, or all of the above. Then, in language that works for
you, you ask the Divine to work with you in reviewing the past 24
hours. As you review the day, you seek out what the best part was
and what the worst part was. You may want to ask this differently:
when was I most connected to Love, when I was I least connected to
Love, when did I feel most whole, when did I feel least whole, etc.
The goal is to find a “high” and a “low” and THEN to thank
God for both, and for everything in-between.

Then,
if you are working with others, you share that information. In any
case, you write them down: the date, the best, and the worst. After
a while…. weeks, or months… you review what you’ve written and
you pay attention to patterns. Was the worst part of you day more
often than not related to your job? Then it is definitely time to
consider if that aspect of your job can change, OR if your job can
change, or if your attitude about your job needs to change. Was the
best part fo your day often the time you spent with your pet? Then
likely it would be great to find ways to maximize that. Or, perhaps,
was the best part of your day some ministry or group you only get to
do very once in a while – but every time it happens it was the
best? Then, perhaps that is something you want to give more
attention to.

See?
Pay attention to patterns, and USE them to discern ways to live a
life with even more good, more love, more wholeness. I want to note
that the staff I and I do this at staff meeting, although then we
review the whole week. I’m often SHOCKED that the answers I find
aren’t the ones I expect, and I think we all know each other a whole
lot more because we’ve heard where both joy and frustration live in
each other’s lives.

If
you want a resource to help you with this process, the book “Sleeping
with Bread” is particularly excellent.

The
second practical offering I have for you is from Nonviolent
Communication (insert gasps of shock here). As a whole, nonviolent
communication teaches us to listen and to speak in four parts:

With
clear objective observation

In
naming and claiming emotions. (ie. “I feel …”and never “You
make me feel…”

In
identifying and noticing the needs that are connected to the
feelings

In
making requests.

The
absolute key, as I see it, of Nonviolent Communication is in the link
between steps 2 and 3. That’s the part where we take feelings we are
feeling and examine them to figure out what needs are under them.
This process has proven to me that it can unravel even the most
complex experiences and responses for me. For example, I can think
of a time when I have felt annoyed. This is definitely something
worth considering, because it is MUCH more likely to give me
information about myself and what I’m needing than it is about what
I’d otherwise call the “source of my annoyance.” If I am
annoyed, it is because some need or needs of MINE aren’t being met.
Sometimes this is because my need for rest isn’t being met. Other
times it is my need for harmony, other times for order! In fact,
feeling annoyed has sometimes reflected a need for some
consideration. In this way of looking at things, feelings are gifts
given to us to help us navigate and understand the needs that
motivate them. They’re like flags marking something that needs our
attention. (Note: anger is super extra this, it marks a violation of
something we really value!)

Once
we are able to notice a feeling, it gives us a chance to consider
what needs are underneath it. Then, once we know the need, we have a
LOT of information about what is going on with us. Further, since
needs can be met in infinite ways, we have a lot of choices about how
to proceed. If what I’m needing is rest, I can go home and take a
nap… or I can go to the bathroom and take an extra long time
washing my hands…. or maybe just take a moment and say a few breath
prayers. If what I’m needing is consideration, then I have the
chance to consider what that can look like and if I’m willing to make
a request related to it.

All
of this means that feelings, which we have all the time, can be great
sources of wisdom about who we are, what we need, and that opens up
the door for some great discernment.

It
seems like a good moment to point out that in Nonviolent
Communication, needs are considered universal, and they’re not a bad
thing. They just ARE. The goal is to become aware of them when
they’re flaring up and then become aware of the MANY ways they can be
fulfilled, so that we start getting creative rather than trying to
force the same solutions over and over that don’t work.

Discernment
is very different from decision making. It is deeper. It is about
the why even more than the what. It can be reached through Daily
Examen, or Nonviolent communication considerations, or even just
through the quiet of contemplative prayer. I appreciate a difference
between petitionary prayer – asking God for stuff- and
contemplative prayer – being present with God. Personally, I enjoy
and find much more value in the latter. It also helps with
discernment.

I’ve
been told that when Quakers have an extra long agenda for a meeting,
they spend twice as long in silent prayer before it begins. There is
wisdom in that. Rushing to decisions can be as bad as avoiding them
all together. But discernment, deep consideration, gives us all a
way to make good, spiritual decisions.

It
turns out, of course, that pouring expensive perfume on Jesus’s feet
was a perfectly acceptable option. I maintain that selling it and
giving the money away would have been too. The key is probably in
the reasons underneath and around each decision, and figuring those
out takes discernment.

May
we practice it – regularly and well. Amen

1Gail
R. O’Day, “John” New Interpreter’s Bible page 702.

2Apple
Dictionary, “discernment” accessed 4/4/2019.

Rev. Sara E. Baron
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305
Pronouns: she/her/hers
http://fumcschenectady.org/
 https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

April 7, 2019

Sermons

“Crying Out” based on Psalm 118: 1-2, 19-29 &…

April 15, 2019February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

I
long thought that Palm Sunday was a big Yay-Jesus parade, where
people shouted Hosanna to say “YAY God!” and it was clear that
everyone got how great God really is and how God was working through
Jesus. I thought that the enthusiasm for God and Jesus was just so
big that the stones themselves were on the brink of crying out. Then
I read John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg’s book “The
Last Week”
and learned that wasn’t it.

The story of Palm Sunday is so
much bigger, so much deeper, and so much BETTER than what I
originally understood. It was, indeed, a Yay-Jesus parade, and it
did, indeed, reflect people celebrating their excitement over God’s
acts in the world. But a WHOLE lot was happening underneath and
around it, and to understand that, we need to look at the Jesus
movement itself, the thing that was being celebrated.

I’m
working today largely from John Dominic Crossan’s book “Who
Killed Jesus: Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel
Stories of The Death of Jesus.” When
he was here last fall for a Carl lecture we learned that he goes by
“Dom.” As he often does, Dom manages to get into the heart of
things by explaining the context. Context is what makes his
scholarship so awesome.

Jesus was a Galilean, whose
ministry was centered in Galilee, right? What was Galilee? Galilee
was a colony of the Roman Empire, and it was a part of what had been
the Northern Kingdom of Israel. We talk about the Northern Kingdom
of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judea because under King David
and his son King Solomon there had been a single united Jewish
country, Ancient Israel, for about 80 years after 1000 BCE. It then
had a civil war and split into two – north and south. The Northern
Kingdom of Israel lost a war to the Assyrians in 722 BCE and its
leadership was taken into exile. The Assyrian empire took over the
land and imposed their customs. The Southern Kingdom did better, it
didn’t lose and go into exile for another 150 years, AND the Southern
Kingdom also got the chance to return from exile and rebuild.
Afterward, it became extra judgmental of its secessionist northern
neighbors, both for the differences that had been present in the
civil war AND for the fact that they were no longer a pure Jewish
state, in faith or custom.

We know some of this history
because of the stories of the Samaritan woman at the well and the
Good Samaritan. Samaria is, after all, directly north of Judea, the
Southern kingdom. What we sometimes forget is that Galilee is the
region NORTH of Samaria. It was ALSO a part of the old Northern
Kingdom. The difference is that in the time of the Maccabees, about
150 years before the birth of Jesus, faithful Jews from Judea moved
up to Galilee to try to resettle faithful Judaism up north. The
Galilee of Jesus day was multicultural and multilingual, rural, and
full of faithful Jews as well as lots of people who weren’t Jewish at
all. It was also a colony of the Roman Empire.

Now,
as Dom says, “The Jewish peasantry was prone … to refuse quiet
compliance with heavy taxation, subsistence farming, debt
impoverishment, and land expropriation. Their traditional ideology
of land
was enshrined in the ancient scriptural laws.”^¹
Galilee itself was a fruitful place, and the land was useful to the
empire. Dom explains, “Lower Galilee’s 470 square miles are
divided by four alternating hills and valleys running in a generally
west-east direction. It is rich in cereals on the valley floors and
olives on the hillside slopes.”^²
It was also pretty rich in radicalism, perhaps BECAUSE of the
percentage of very faithful Jewish people who believed land to be a
gift from God for the people of God.

Now,
John the Baptist did NOT do his ministry in Galilee. (I JUST figured
this out.) His ministry across the river in Perea, in the DESERT. I
hadn’t realized that Galilee didn’t have deserts until Dom pointed it
out. The other side of the Jordan is the side people had waited on,
it is the side they entered the Promised Land from. Galilee, like
Samaria and Judea, had been part of the Promised Land. According to
Dom, John the Baptist “is drawing people into the desert east of
the Jordan, but instead of gathering a large crowd there and bringing
them into the Promised Land in one great march, he sends them through
the Jordan individually, baptizing away their sins in its purifying
waters and telling them to await in holiness the advent of the
avenging God.”^³
He was re-enacting the entrance into the Promised Land, that gift of
LAND for the people. Thus he was challenging the religious,
political, social, and economic bases of Roman control.^⁴
This got him killed.

Being a colony isn’t a great
thing for people. That’s obvious, right? Colonies exist to bring
wealth to the country that controls them, and that means that the
people in the colony are means of wealth production. Dom explains a
bit more:

“When
a people is exploited by colonial occupation, one obvious response is
armed revolt or military rebellion. But sometimes that situation of
oppression is experienced as so fundamentally evil and so humanly
hopeless that only transcendental intervention is deemed of any use.
God,
and God alone, must act to restore a ruined world to justice and
holiness.
This demands a vision and a program that is radical, countercultural,
utopian, world-negating, or, as scholars say eschatological.
That terms comes form the Greek word for ‘the last things’ and means
that God’s solution will be so profound as to constitute an ending of
things, a radical new world-negation.”

The best known example of this
in the Bible is when God acted to free the people from slavery in
Egypt. The people were oppressed, they cried out, God heard them,
and sent Moses and set the people free.

That particular story is
celebrated and remembered at the Passover. The Passover is holy
celebration of God’s action to set the people free when they had no
power to free themselves. The Palm Sunday parade was a formalized
entrance to the Jewish celebration of Passover in Jerusalem, at the
time when Jerusalem was ALSO under Roman Imperial control. It was,
thus, a very dynamic situation. The potential for Jewish upraising
at Passover is the reason that the Roman Governor showed up then,
with a lot of military might and show.. In fact, the Roman Governor
came into the West Gate with a LARGE military parade, at about the
same time that the Gospels say that the Jesus movement came in the
East gate with a populist God parade.

Can you feel the tension rising?

Dom
goes further into explaining how religious ideas of eschatology, of
last things, work. He says that there are two models, and John the
Baptist used one while Jesus used the other. The John the Baptist
way was passive for humans and active for God. It was the idea that
God is going to come save “us,” where us indicates a single group
defined by those who know that God is about to act. This sort of
eschatology is based on a future
promise that God will
act to save us. Dom says, “This future but imminent apocalyptic
radicalism is dependent on the overpowering action of God moving to
restore justice and peace to an earth ravished by injustice and
oppression.”^⁵
That might sound pretty good, until you hear the one Jesus used.

As
a reminder, Jesus was baptized by John. That means he was a DISCIPLE
of John (a student of John’s), but one way or another he branched off
of John’s teachings and went his own way. The second way that Jesus
ended up going is called sapiential
eschatology. Dom
says, “The word saptientia
is
Latin for ‘wisdom’ and sapiential eschatology announces that God has
given all
human beings
the wisdom to discern how, here and now in this world, one can so
live that God’s power, rule, and domination are evidently present to
all observers. It involves a way of life for now rather than a hope
for life for the future. … In apocalyptical eschatology, we are
waiting for God to act. In sapiential eschatology, God is waiting
for us to act.”^⁶

As
far as I can understand it, this is the crux of it all. We follow
Jesus, who taught us about God who is already present to us, who
works with us to change things for the better. We aren’t waiting on
God. We’re working with God. Jesus’s ministry was one of
proclaiming the Kingdom of God. Dom explains this well too, “the
sayings and parables of the historical Jesus often describe a world
of radical
egalitarianism
in which discrimination and hierarchy, exploitation and oppression
should no longer exist.”^⁷
The Jesus kingdom movement, “is not a matter of Jesus’ power but
of their empowerment. He himself has no monopoly on the kingdom; it
is there for anyone with the courage to embrace it.”^⁸
All of this may explain why they could kill Jesus, but not his
movement.

It
also explains why the crowds were so excited on Palm Sunday and
throughout Jesus’ ministry. Jesus was speaking to their problems,
oppression, debt, loss of land, loss of subsistence, loss of dignity
AND he was offering them the reality that God
was already with them and they could change it themselves!
No wonder they were having a Yay-Jesus parade.

I
think the big questions this leaves US with today are about how we
best live the Kingdom. If it is already here, if God is already with
us, if we can partake in the radical egalitarianism, if God has
given all
human beings
the wisdom to discern how, here and now in this world, one can so
live that God’s power, rule, and domination are evidently present to
all observers… then what is it that we need make space for so that
we can LIVE it!??? How do we access that wisdom we already have, how
do we live that life that God has made possible?

Or, to put it another way, how
do we step out of the world’s obsessions with consumption,
acquisition, fear, existential anxiety, competition, hierarchy, and
distractions SO THAT we can live the GOOD life God already made
possible? Since the goal is to live in love and allow lovingness to
expand in us, and I wonder if it is a matter of balance. There is a
need for rest, to savor the goodness; AND there is a need for
activity, to respond to the goodness. There is a need for more
learning to know how to best respond, AND there is a need to teach
others what we know. There is a need to attend to the goodness of
life AND there is a need to attend to the brokenness and see it
clearly. There is definitely a need to play – to live into joy,
laughter and delight AND a need to be courageous and loving in
seeking justice for all. Because part of the call of Jesus is to
live a good life, and the other part is to make it possible to for
others to live a good life – but not JUST a good life! The call is
to a life that is a transformed, courageous, God-soaked with love.

In
the end of our story we hear, “Some of the Pharisees in the crowd
said to him, ‘Teacher, order your disciples to stop.’ He answered,
‘I tell you, if these were silent, the stones would shout out.’”
This is the part I had entirely wrong. It isn’t that the stones are
bursting with joy. It is that the people cannot be silenced because
they’ve been empowered.
God’s empowering love is with them, and they’ve learned that they
already have what they need to change their lives and change the
world. And once people know that, they can’t be silenced. Thanks be
to God! Amen

1John
Dominic Crossan, Who Killed Jesus: Exposing the Roots of
Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Stories of The Death of Jesus (USA:
HarperSanFrancisco: 1995) 40.

2Crossan,
42.

3Crossan,
44.

4Crossan,
44.

5Crossan,
47.

6Crossan,
47.

7Crossan
48.

8Crossan,
48.

Rev. Sara E. Baron
First United Methodist Church of Schenectady
603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305
Pronouns: she/her/hers
http://fumcschenectady.org/
 https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

April 14, 2019

Sermons

“Words to a Warring Church’

February 4, 2019February 4, 2019
by Sara Baron

based on 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 and Luke 4:16-30

Don’t get distracted by the pretty love poetry, First Corinthians was written to a church that was fighting within itself, and this passage is about that. The Jewish Annotated Bible points out, “This letter, written in the mid-50s, reveals the divisions facing the Pauline churches over such central concepts as the Holy Spirit (ch 2), marital and sexual norms (ch 5-7; 11), relation with the Gentile world (chs 6; 8), worship practices (ch 12), women’s roles (ch 14) and resurrection (ch 15).”1 Paul clarifies right from the get-go why he is writing, “Now I appeal to you, brothers and sisters, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you should be in agreement and that there should be no divisions among you, but that you should be united in the same mind and the same purpose. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there are quarrels among you, my brothers and sisters.” (1 Cor 1:10-11, NRSV)

The whole letter is written to deal with the disagreements – to offer advice on them and to remind the church HOW to disagree. 1 Corinthians 13 fits into the latter category, it is meant to instruct the church on what it means to follow Jesus in the midst of disagreement. It reflects the opposite of the described behavior of the members of the Corinthian church in the rest of the letter. They are said to be impatient, unkind, boastful and arrogant, boastful in wrongdoing, etc. All the things that love is NOT. “Love is patient, love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful…” After all, love is a reflection of God’s nature. The word for love being used here is “agape” or unconditional love. The church often talks about this as the love that is God’s love for humans, and when we seek to live out our faith, we seek to bear God’s agape love into the world for all people.

Earlier in the letter, Paul worked with a common Corinthian saying, “All things are lawful”. He reflects, “‘All things are lawful’, but not all things are beneficial. ‘All things are lawful’, but not all things build up. Do not seek your own advantage, but that of others.” (10:23-24) Over and over again, Paul seeks to encourage the Corinthians to take care of each other, and use their power for the communal well-being.

Luke 4 contains another example of a faith community misbehaving. In this case it is said to be the synagogue in Nazareth, although historically speaking there are some reasons to be doubtful of the factuality of this story. Some of them are: we aren’t sure there was a synagogue in Nazareth; if there was, we don’t know that they would have been prosperous enough to have a scroll of Isaiah; and perhaps just as importantly, Nazareth isn’t built on a cliff.

This passage is almost certainly a creation of Luke, based off of a much shorter narrative in Mark that centers around the line, “Prophets are not without honor, except in their home town, and among their own kin, and in their own house.” Its OK that it is a creation of Luke, it lets him show of his themes, which I tend to greatly support. Luke emphasizes God’s love for the foreigners and Gentiles, and Luke quotes Isaiah who reminds us that the Spirit is working to bring good news to the poor, release to the captives, recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor. For Luke, this is Jesus’s mission statement. For us, this is a part of our Communion Liturgy. For those who aren’t remembering it, the “year of the Lord’s favor” refers to the practice of Jubilee, in which every 50 years all debts are forgiven AND all land reverts back to the family who owned it. This system was meant to prevent intergenerational poverty, and to ensure that people’s subsistence remained possible. It was, by the time of Jesus, common for people to be imprisoned because of debt (a way to blackmail family members into paying up), or for family members to be sold to pay off debts. To the people of Jesus time (and Luke’s), who hadn’t seen a Jubilee in perhaps a millennia (we aren’t entirely sure if it ever happened, but we think it may have happened in the time of the Judges), this was probably a bit incredible.

Believable or not for those who heard it, the Isaiah passage emphasizes God being on the side of the poor, vulnerable, and oppressed, and working towards their good, and Luke believes this work is embodied in Jesus.

Now, within the context of this story, it is entirely too easy to assume that the Jews in Nazareth were upset about the inclusion of the outsiders, and feeling like their “special” status was threatened, but in the Jewish Annotated New Testament I have been assured by Amy Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler that this is not at all the case. After all, those were Jewish stories, and the Jews had very good relationships with Gentiles. Instead, the presenting issue in this narrative is that Jesus refuses to do messianic stuff. Mark explains this as Jesus being UNABLE, but in Luke it sounds more like Jesus refuses. Initially the crowd is quite pleased with what he is saying, but if he is doing God’s work (as described in Isaiah), but not for them. This is what enrages them. They want the good work of God too! They want freedom, healing, liberation, and debt recovery. Why wouldn’t they! Jesus choice not to help them when he helps others is what Luke reports as enraging them.

Having done adequate work understanding the texts on their own merit, I believe we are now free to excavate them for meaning for us today. I believe most of you have heard that The United Methodist Church is a bit, shall we say, Corinthian? For the uninitiated into the infighting in The United Methodist Church, let me offer a few disclaimers: 1. The fights in the church at large are NOT reflected in this congregation. After two years of careful study and conversation, in 1996, this congregation voted to be affirming and celebration of God’s LGBTQIA+ children, and we hold FIRM in that position today. 2. The General Church has pretty much always been a big fight for power, money, and influence. This is a discouraging fact (I’d love it if the General Church were a spiritually centered experience in collaboration and sharing agape around the world). However, it is a fact. In part this is true because we have a democratic process – we neither have a leader at the top telling us what to do NOR have complete freedom for our own churches. Furthermore, we are super diverse, and that means we often have very different values, and ideas of where power, money, and influence should be used. It isn’t ALL bad.

Now that I’ve offered the disclaimers, this month the Global United Methodist Church is getting together in Saint Louis to have a big old fight. (February 23-26). Officially, the church will be discussing, “human sexuality.” Really, the church will be fighting over whether or not people who are LGBTQIA+ are beloved by God. (Yes.) More deeply, I believe the church is still fighting over who has control of money, power, and influence, and the fight has been put on the backs of LGBTQIA+ people when really it is about whether or not the old-school power brokers (most commonly older, whiter, richer, Southern US, conservative, men) can make other people do their bidding anymore. (Thanks be to God, no.)

In First Corinthians, Paul is VERY concerned about the WAYS the church treated each other in their disagreements. He seems more concerned about this than about the answers that they come to. They were told to build each other up. This is a super duper hard thing to remember coming into General Conference. I believe we are all called to see each other’s humanity, and to see each other as beloved by God, even our disagreement. I do NOT believe it is acceptable to see another member of the church as the ENEMY. I believe that the way we disagree is important, and Paul’s teaching is very important.

And I really, really wish that the other side would stop doing stuff to make that more difficult. 😉

However, I’m going to play fair right now. I’m going to start by telling you what our side (the side for inclusion of all of God’s people) does that infuriates the other side (the side that likely thinks of itself as for “purity”). First of all, we disobey. The conservatives have had the majority power in the church since 1972, and have used it to say that “homosexuality is incompatible with Christian teaching” and thus “self-avowed practicing homosexuals” cannot be ordained or appointed and UM clergy can’t preside at same sex weddings. Because we don’t believe that these rules have authority in the eyes of God, we’ve disobeyed them.

Furthermore, we’ve protested them. We’ve gone to General Conferences, and other meetings, and protested, and people have been uncomfortable with that. In 2000, we (I wasn’t there, this is the “we” of the inclusivity movement) even shut down General Conference. Our Bishop at the time – yours and mine – chose to be arrested with the protesters in solidarity, which was one of the most inspiring things I’ve ever seen.

Our refusal to obey oppressive authority, and our refusal to be quiet about it has been a problem for the other side, and is taken as unfair tactics. Now, clearly, I disagree, but I thought it would be nice to share their viewpoint first for once.

On our side, the complaints are a bit different. First of all, our primary issue, is with the church claiming that some of God’s beloveds aren’t God’s beloveds. That said, James Baldwin once said (and Jan Huston was nice enough to post on my FB this week to remind me) “We can disagree and still love each other unless your disagreement is rooted in my oppression and denial of my humanity and right to exist.” Thus, I do not believe that both sides are equally valid when it comes to discussing the humanity and right to exist of LGBTQIA+ people in the church.

Then there are the current tactics on the side of exclusion. These include: wanting minimum penalties for doing same sex weddings, kicking out Annual Conferences that ordain self-avowed practicing homosexuals2, minimizing the pension payments for clergy who are part of Annual Conferences that ordain self-avowed practicing homosexuals3, AND deciding to leave and form a new denomination (the Wesleyan Covenant Association) WHILE intentionally bankrupting The United Methodist Church4

That is, they want to kick LGBTQIA+ people and their allies out of the church, impoverish retired clergy, and bankrupt the denomination.

And Paul says I’m supposed to be loving.

And I think he’s right.

I sort of wish I knew how to be like Jesus in the end of the gospel, just walking away while fists are pounding and violence is imminent, like in a cartoon.

However, I’m willing to settle for a bit less. I’d like to be blessed with the ability to keep on loving, and keep on seeing God’s light in those with whom I disagree NO MATTER HOW BADLY THEY BEHAVE. I keep on praying, and practicing love, in hopes that I will be able to do so.

This feels like a lesson far larger than General Conference or The United Methodist Church. But it also takes a second step. I want to know people are beloved by God, no matter how badly they behave, but I do NOT think that means I have to let them walk all over me, nor over God’s other beloveds. Walter Wink teaches that when Jesus says “turn the other cheek” he means “use subversive methods to require your opponent to respect you.”

I want to learn to turn the other cheek in love. I hope you want to too! May God help us all open our hearts and minds to the agape love and wisdom necessary to do so, now and always. Amen

1 The Jewish Annotated New Testament: New Revised Standard Version Bible Translation, edited by Amy-Jill Levine and Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 287.

2 See, the Traditional Plan and the Modified Traditional Plan in the ACDA: http://www.umc.org/who-we-are/gc2019-advance-edition-daily-christian-advocate

3 http://hackingchristianity.net/2019/01/confirmed-pensions-board-issues-traditionalist-plan-concerns-wespath-updates-faq.html

4https://snarkypastorrants.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-devil-in-details.html

Image is of the Love Your Neighbor Coalition logo.

Sermons

“Do Not Fear, Beloved” Page 6Rev. Sara E. Baron…

January 14, 2019February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

The
words we heard from Isaiah today were spoken to a community abandoned
to despair. Isaiah chapters 40-55 is called “Second Isaiah” and
Second Isaiah was written to the exiles who had been force-ably
marched across the desert to Babylon after the defeat and destruction
of Jerusalem. The exiles in Babylon were despondent. They’d watched
their city, their temple, and their nation be destroyed. They’d seen
entirely too much death. Those who were left behind had all of their
possessions and food taken from them, and were left without city
walls to protect them. And the ones in exile were supposed to be the
leaders of the people who took care of them, but instead they were in
captivity in a foreign land.

In
the midst of all of this, they were likely struggling with their
faith. Not only do terrible events tend to make most people struggle
with their faith, the faith of the Israelites at that time centered
on two things: 1. The story of the God of Liberation who had freed
them from slavery in Egypt and 2. The gift of the Promised Land to
God’s beloved people as a sign of God’s intention to keep them from
other nations. You can probably see how a faith based on freedom and
land would be seriously shaken by being taken back into slavery after
losing the land.

To
those struggling former leaders, now slaves, Isaiah send a message of
hope. Isaiah was a prophet, so he spoke what he believed to be a
message from God for the people. The message is shocking. It may
help to know that “To be redeemed according to Israel’s law means
to be bought out of human bondage by one’s kin, a close member of the
extended family.”¹
More specifically, “The verb refers to a family intervention and
solidarity whereby a stronger member of the family intervenes to
assure the well being of a weaker member.”²
So with that, we can hear the first verse again.

This
is a message to you from YHWH, who created you, from God, who formed
you:

Do
not be afraid. You are in need of a family member to pay for your
freedom,

and
I have done so. You are my family. You bear my name.

The
people are ENSLAVED. In a foreign land. After a major defeat, that
most of them took to be a judgement by God. This cannot be what they
expect hear. Not even the beginning, the reminder that they were
formed by God’s own hand. And definitely not the next part that God
was going to pay for their freedom … since they thought God had
sent them into exile. After feeling abandoned by God they got this
message that God claimed them, loved them, acted on their behalf. I
imagine that it was confusing to try to parse out if this could be
true. As a scholar puts it, “Israel is now fully identified with,
belongs to, and is cherished by Yahweh.”³
But they’ve been interpreting their experience as the opposite.

This
experience, while very specific, seems to have some universal themes
underlying it. Life has its ups and its downs, some of the downs are
very far down, some of the downs are for a whole family or whole
community, and quite often the downs feel like God has forgotten us,
abandoned us, punished us, or… maybe like God ISn’t after all.
Today’s Isaiah scripture speaks into those times. “Do not be
afraid, I am with you. I have called you by name, and the name I
call you is ‘mine.’” We are not forgotten, abandoned, nor
punished. We are still connected, beloved, claimed… and when
things are at their worst, God is with us for it.

The
passage then turns to possible threats that could harm Israel, and
assures that YHWH is available to help them if that happens. Floods
and rivers, not too much for God. Fires and wildfires, not too much
for God. This, too, applies to us. Bad things may come, disasters
may come, raging loses may come, they aren’t too much for God and God
is still with us.

Second
Isaiah speaks words of comfort and hope. This is particularly
notable because First Isaiah (the first 40 chapters) come before the
exile and speak rather dire warnings of what might come to pass if
the leaders of the people don’t chance course. As most of the Hebrew
Bible was written down during and immediately after the Exile, I am
convinced that it has two primary questions it is asking is “why
did this happen to us?” and “how do we understand God in these
circumstances?” The Hebrew Bible answers those questions in a lot
of different ways, and Second Isaiah’s take is “it happened, that’s
not the right question. But as to how do we understand God, that’s
the important one – we know a God who comforts us, cares for us,
never abandons us, and claims us. Because of God, we have hope for
the present and the future.”

There
are so many themes that bounce back and forth between our two
scriptures today, it can seem that Luke 3 is using Isaiah 43 as a
source text. However, Isaiah is inherently talking to the COMMUNITY,
and in Luke 3, God is speaking to Jesus – just one guy. Or, at
least, I think that’s what is happening. The story says that it is
of God speaking to Jesus, but I also know the story is much larger
when we consider the baptism of Jesus as one of the primary reasons
we baptize people into membership in the Body of Christ, and that
this story then resonates within all baptized Christians. So maybe
both them are written to communities, but only one of them admits it?
I’m not sure.

Luke’s
telling about Jesus’ baptism is brief but powerful. Jesus was
baptized, he was praying, the Spirit came (like a dove) and then
voice (from heaven) said, “You are my Child, the Beloved; with
you I am well pleased.” Within the Gospel this serves as an
affirmation of Jesus’ identity as Messiah. However, have the words
have echoed through the ages, and been passed on to each Christian at
their baptism, they have come to mean even more. They have become
like the words in Second Isaiah, an affirmation that God knows us,
sees us, claims us, and is with us. These are words that tell us
that we are LOVED, and that God also LIKES us. They are words that
tell us of grace – that we are loved because God loves us and
that’s the final answer – that our FIRST identity is “loved by
God” -both as individuals and as a community.

Our
second identity, then, is to show God’s love. In the United
Methodist Communion liturgy, the second question that is asked fo
parents of babies being baptized or of adults answering for their own
baptism is, “Do
you accept the freedom and power God gives you to to resist evil,
injustice, and oppression in whatever forms they present themselves?”
I have come to LOVE this question. In fact, it has been MY cover
photo on facebook for two years AND the church’s cover photo for a
year and a half.
I’ve considered changing both, but it is too on point.
In these times, when the powers of injustice and oppression feel
like they’re crushing in, both within the church and in the world, it
feels liberating to hear that question again. “The freedom and
power God gives you….” We do not have to be pulled into. We
don’t have to participate. We can choose another path. We are FREE,
because God frees us from the powers of evil, injustice and
oppression.

That’s some great stuff.
And Jesus is one of the examples of what a life can look like when it
is free from evil, injustice, and oppression.

“This is my child, the
beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” It is easy to look at the
babies we baptize and see how true those words are for them. It can
be very easy in adult baptism to hear the words echoing as well. One
of the challenges is remembering that it keeps on echoing for all of
us, all the time. In sacred moments, we see it, but it is
omnipresent. Each person we meet is beloved by God, a child of God,
one who God LIKES. Each of us are beloved by God, a child of God,
liked by God – even when we aren’t able to like ourselves.

And then there is the correlated
bigger picture. We, as a church, are a community of God’s, a Body of
Christ together (even as we are part of larger and larger versions of
the Body of Christ in the world.) We are not the entirety of God’s
beloved community, but we ARE a beloved community of God’s. Which
means that we are some of the recipients of the words in Luke as well
of the ones in Isaiah. We are children of God, beloved, and with us
God is well pleased. Also,

This
is a message to you from YHWH, who created you, from God, who formed
you:

Do
not be afraid. You are in need of a family member to pay for your
freedom,

and
I have done so. You are my family. You bear my name.

We
are God’s, together. In fact, as a community, we come together
knowing ourselves to be an expression of God’s love, together. We
are formed together by being people seeking God, seeking to
understand things of God, seeking to live out God’s ways in the
world. We are formed by the Divine stories, by Divine love, by
building the kindom of God together. We bear God’s name.

This
means that God is with us in the ups and downs. God was with us when
this community was large, when Sunday School was overflowing and this
sanctuary was full every week. God is with us now when we are fewer
people, with just as much commitment to God’s ways. God is with us
when new people are joining us, and God is with us when we gather in
gratitude for lives well lived. God is with us when we are
struggling to find our ways of being in this world and in this
community, and God is with us when we know we’re up to just the right
ways of being love in the world.

We
are God’s. Thanks be to God. Amen

1Kathleen
M. O’Connor, “Exegetical Perspective on Isaiah 43:1-7,” in
Feasting on the Word Year C Volume 1,
ed. David L. Bartlett and Barbara Brown Taylor (Louisville, KT:
Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 221.

2Walter
Bruggemann, Isaiah 40-66
(Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press, 1998), 53.

3Bruggemann,
53.

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

January 13, 2019

Sermons

“Not a King Like THAT” based on Psalm 93 and…

November 25, 2018February 15, 2020
by Sara Baron

Rev. Sara E. BaronFirst United Methodist Church of Schenectady603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305Pronouns: she/her/hershttp://fumcschenectady.org/
https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectadyIt is best, when reading from the Gospel of John, to do with awareness of metaphor and symbolism. Because the Gospel of John was written much later than the other Gospels (a generation or two), it has a tendency to make its points more poetically. Part of what I mean by this is that the Gospel of John lacks historical accuracy, but that is because historical accuracy wasn’t all that valuable to John. John thinks there are important points to make, and John makes them, presumably assuming that those listening know that the stories are being told to make points, and not to tell facts.

Which is to say, this is contrived encounter between Pilate and Jesus that deviates from how the other Gospels tell and and how it actually could have been. AND, that’s OK. John is expressing essential elements of Jesus-following, and he does it beautifully.

John contrasts the domination systems of the world with the nonviolence of Jesus and contrasts the power-hungry methods of leadership in the world, with the power-giving leadership of Jesus. There is significant debate over whether or not Jesus ever thought of himself or spoke of himself as a king, most of the Jesus Seminar thinks he didn’t. There are two reasons, however, why the early Christian community would have wanted to present him that way:

The expectation of the Jewish Messiah was of a Jewish King in the model of King David: one who would restore political, economic, and military might to the nation of Israel, one who would preside over an empire, one who would prove the power and might of God by overcome adversaries. While Jesus was CERTAINLY not THAT kind of king, speaking of Jesus in king language connected him to the tradition and claimed him in a role that people could make sense of. Granted, even in this passage, the sense being made has to acknowledge that Jesus is not a king in the normal ways of the world, but it was an imperative claim to early Christians that Jesus was the fulfillment of what their ancestors had been waiting for.
The Roman Empire which held the Jewish homelands as part and parcel of its Empire claimed many titles for itself. The Roman Emperor was the Prince of Peace, the Savior of the World, the Lord of Lords. Much of the language we now think of as Christian is really reflective of the early church claiming that Jesus was the real deal and the Roman Empire was not. Which to say, most of what sounds pious speech NOW was heresy when it came into Christianity. Within that context, for the Roman Empire the “King of the Jews” was the person that Rome appointed to be the leader of the lands occupied by the Jews. King Herod had been “King of the Jews” but his kingdom had been split upon his death. To even enter into this conversation about “King of the Jews” is to threaten the power of Rome to appoint leaders over God’s people. Pilate was NOT “King of the Jews”, he led ¼^th of the former kingdom and was the “tetrarch” of Judea. For him to be in conversation with Jesus about whether or not Jesus was the king of the Jews was for him to be asking if Jesus OUTRANKED him. The conversation itself, as presented here in John, makes Pilate a comedic figure and therefore dismisses his authority. The entire narrative supports the importance of Jesus, and contrasts him with the power-seeking ways of the world.

Now that we know why this conversation is presented to begin with, we can play with it a little more. Jesus is not presented as giving any straight answers, which I find amusing. He keeps asking questions to answer questions and responding in ways that Pilate can’t follow. To be fair, these do seem to be consistent with other stories of how Jesus plays cat and mouse with anyone trying to trap him.

My favorite line comes in verse 36. Pilate is trying to get Jesus to confess to what he’s accused of. Historically speaking, Jesus was accused of leading a revolt against the Empire, but he isn’t going to say that. Instead of answering the question at all, he says, “My kingdom is not from this world. If my kingdom were from this world, my followers would be fighting to keep me from being handed over to the Jews. But as it is, my kingdom is not from here.” The answer he gives has often been “spiritualized,” which I mean in a negative way even though I think spirituality is awesome. Christians have differentiated between the kingdoms on earth and the kingdom of heaven, and in doing so have indicated that it doesn’t matter what happens on earth as long as they manage to enter the kingdom of heaven.

This perspective has done GREAT harm, including by permitting abuses to human beings like slavery and functioning as an argument for not worrying about global climate change, to only take note of the worst offenses. Unfortunately, it also trickles down to other ways of not caring about God’s creation and creatures. I believe this is an inaccurate as well as problematic reading of the text.

John is talking about the ways of the world that are VIOLENT, he is talking about the domination systems of the world and contrasting them with the Jesus movement, which is NONVIOLENT and equitable. Both systems that are being contrasted here are systems of THIS world, and in fact both systems are ones that claim for themselves Divine blessing.

This year I’ve shared a few times the definition of domination system, but it has been a while, so I’m going to offer it again. “Domination systems are humanly contrived legal, social, political, economic, military, and religious systems deliberately designed and built to create and maintain power by a few at the top over the many below them. They exist to perpetuate the power of dominators over those dominated, explain why it is necessary, and to transfer wealth from workers up the ladder to the few obscenely wealthy persons at the top of the pyramid. Domination systems of various types have existed since the beginning of recorded history,”¹ although not all human systems have been domination systems.

Jesus and his followers lived in a domination system, but they lived in ways that transformed it rather than complied with it. The definition factor of a domination system is violence, but Jesus was emphatically nonviolent. This is what is presented in this Gospel lesson. If Jesus was building his own domination system to threaten the domination system of the Roman Empire, than Jesus’ followers would have come to rescue him with their own violent powers. They would have lead a revolution. They would come ready to fight.

They didn’t. Jesus faced violence without returning violence. He also faced it without yielding to its power, and by neither returning violence nor accepting the power of violence over him, he decreased its power in the world. Jesus’ kingdom was one of nonviolence, one without domination, one that has been about changing the world into the kindom of God which is a nonviolent and equitable kindom – rather than being like the normal ones of this world. But, the kindom or kingdom is one that is of THIS world.

Which leads us to some very practical questions. How well are we following in the nonviolent way of Christ? How well are we transforming the world, at least the world around us, from domination into equity? Where are we complicit in allowing violence and/or domination to take hold in our lives and our community? When do we struggle the most to live like Jesus did?

And, once we’ve squirmed with those questions: how can we more fully live into nonviolence and radical equity? At the core, I think all of the offerings of this faith community are meant to support the intersecting goals of nonviolence and radical equity. We study the Bible so we can learn how to do it, we learn about the injustices of the world so we can be part of changing them, we redistribute food and necessities to God’s beloved people to make our community more equitable, we worship to fill our souls with goodness so we can receive God’s gifts of peace and joy (which enable us to treat others with peace and compassion), we gather together for meetings and studies to learn from each other’s wisdom about what is needed and to try to offer it into the world.

Others are working with us in these tasks – other faith communities, other nonprofits, other teachers and students of wisdom and spirituality. It isn’t all on us, but our contributions matter.

Yet, I still wonder what we need – individually and communally – to do this better? Do we need opportunities for shared spiritual practice, to center ourselves on God’s peace? Do we need stories of hope and redemption, to remind ourselves of what God is capable of? Do we need times and spaces for rest from the work that has become wearying? Do we need clearer goals so we don’t feel like everything is on our shoulders, and we can remember that we work with God who has a lot to offer along with us!?

This is the last Sunday of the Christian year, and we start anew next week with the beginning of a new Advent and the return to the beginning of our faith story. So, as we come to the end of this year’s cycle of liturgy and remembrance, I offer it as a time for reflection: how well are we following the nonviolence and radically equitable ways of Jesus, and what do we need in order to keep following and keep deepening our faith?

I hope, perhaps, you’ll tell me what you you think about this, because I’m certain that God works among us in shared wisdom and together we have the answers we need to guide us in this next iteration of our shared journey. Thanks be to God. Amen

1Jim Jordal, “What is a Domination System” found on 2/10/2017 athttp://www.windsofjustice.org/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=356 written on March 14, 2013.

–

Rev. Sara E. Baron

First United Methodist Church of Schenectady

603 State St. Schenectady, NY 12305

Pronouns: she/her/hers

http://fumcschenectady.org/

https://www.facebook.com/FUMCSchenectady

November 25, 2018